MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407949312 · doi:10.1162/99608f92.d605e50f

The Problem of Terroir in the Anthropocene

2025· article· en· W4407949312 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Data Science Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropoceneTerroirEnvironmental ethicsGeographyHistoryArchaeologyPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate is integral to the concept of terroir. With anthropogenic climate change, the terroir of the world’s winegrowing regions is changing, and will continue to change for decades or centuries. The clearest signal of this shift comes from the earlier harvests of winegrapes over the last several decades with harvests 2–3 weeks earlier in France and other regions. These earlier harvests have reshaped the climatic profile under which berries ripen, leading to wines with higher alcohol and shifted phenolic and aromatic attributes. But these shifts also hint at a major way to adapt viticulture to climate change—through matching variety phenology to the current and future climates of established winegrowing regions. Here I show how variety phenology—the timing of major growth and reproductive events including budburst, flowering, veraison and harvest—is a critical component of terroir and one that is becoming increasingly mismatched due to climate change. I outline how growers and researchers alike can leverage current and new data to help develop a framework to shift varieties with climate change, and discuss how this could help build a more dynamic definition of terroir—one that embraces the challenges, and potential opportunities, of the Anthropocene.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it